On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:33:46 -0700, Keith wrote:

As I said, I don't know the whole story nor at which office it
happened.

He was caught by the FCC sending false distress signals on 156.8 and
another marine frequency from his backyard. I wish they would just
start throwing these morons in front of a jury. I don't think a jury
will have much sympathy for the f*cking idiots.

Thanks for posting the letter with the details, Keith.

Interesting to note that this was "my" former office, and I can
picture the two agents involved (and their wives and kids) and now
that I have read the letter, I can offer some more comments.

This unlicensed operation took place on a frequency not in or
adjacent to any amateur band, and as such, Riley Hollingsworth is
not involved. It's strictly a District Office project. The fact
that he has an amateur license has no bearing on his culpability at
this point. In fact, the law prohibits the FCC from going after his
license for failure to pay a monetary penalty unless the matter has
been litigated to a final judgment in an evidentiary proceeding
either before an Administrative Law Judge or within the Federal court
system.

If after the unlicensed operation matter is settled, the Bureau
determines that he does not possess the moral character to remain a
licensee, they must institute formal proceedings to revoke his
station license and suspend his operating privileges for the
remander of the term. This starts the circus all over again.

From the letter, "restoration of the equipment" appears to be only
the first step in the enforcement process. Based on what's going to
happen next, my guess is that they did not want to accept the
voluntary surrender of the equipment as a "plea bargain" for
deferring further action, but could not let him continue to have the
means to create further intentional violations.

The letter requires him to make certain statements about
how, why, and what. There's no "Fifth Amendment" rock to hide
under in an administrative proceeding.

After he replies, my best guess is that the office will issue a
Notice of Apparent Liability for a substantial amount. Then, the
bargaining can begin as to whether he is capable of paying such an
amount - ability to pay is one of the factors that the law requires
the issuing officer to consider when finalizing the forfeiture
amount. It appears that they have enough evidence to proceed even
if he denies everything or refuses to answer.

It's up to the USCG to get the U S Attorney to file charges if the
issue of false distress is to be pursued criminally. If so, I hope
that the U S Attorney's Office (Northern District of California)
will also move on the "Mervin" case that the FCC and the USCG
brought her ten years ago for doing the same thing. Speedy they are
not. Both the USCG investigator and I have retired in the
meanwhile.....

It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon